| Nov-08-05 | | Ger7ry: I look at the position after 21 moves, and I say, how is White going to win this? He's down a bishop for a knight, he has two isolated pawns - how can White possibly win this game. Then, he does. Did Short really mess up the endgame, or is it just that my evaluation is way off? |
|
| Nov-30-05 | | KingG: <Did Short really mess up the endgame> You mean Kasparov. I don't really understand how Black managed to lose this endgame either. |
|
| May-31-06 | | zev22407: The powerful knight at d5 dominates the end game |
|
| Nov-26-06 | | ToTheDeath: Nice endgame by Short. |
|
| Sep-26-08 | | Whitehat1963: Excellent game. Should become a Game of the Day sometime. |
|
| Oct-13-08 | | MEISTERBRAU: 51...Rc6 is a 100% GK blunder! ...Rb6 would have
made it .but the position is lost anyway. |
|
| Mar-28-09 | | william willson: I don't see the point of 36. ...Rb2
can anyone enlighten me? |
|
| Mar-28-09 | | chillowack: 36...Rb2 looks like an attempt to get some activity, after playing passively and allowing White to gain complete control of the position. The idea is to use the rook to check the White king from behind, and also to attack the a-pawn from the rear. The alternative is just to slowly die. Short's strategy was sound: he traded queens, thus de-fanging Kasparov. He got a good knight vs. bad bishiop endgame, and he played it correctly. His isolated pawns weren't such a problem, because the king can shepherd them while the rook and knight go on hunting expeditions in Black's camp. |
|
| Mar-28-09 | | WhiteRook48: bad bishops!
Has anyone noticed that there are more bad bishops than good bishops? |
|
| Jul-13-09 | | totololo: Consider the isolated pawns as support central posts for the knight. With the rook on board the central post is protected by the excellent manoevre Rf6-a6 that blocks the queen side. It is interesting that the same strategy that Short delivered in this game will be applied by K. in a Najdorf years later when all black pawns seem scattered but they are formidable outposts for the knight. Still rooks were available on the board. VERY , VERY , Interesting ending strategy! |
|
| Oct-20-09 | | Everett: Endgame lesson. With the rooks off this is likely a draw, or perhaps advantageous to black. Rooks on is another story entirely... |
|
| Oct-20-09 | | Jim Bartle: Wasn't Immopar a rapid, knockout toournament? |
|
| Oct-20-09 | | Eyal: <Jim Bartle: Wasn't Immopar a rapid, knockout toournament?> Yes, it was. You mean why the game is mistakenly tagged as "classical"? The state of this database is rather poor in this regard - there are dozens of rapid tournaments or events that are mistakenly tagged like that - e.g., the recent Azerbaijan vs the World event, the final four games of the Kramnik-Topalov match, some of the early Amber tournaments, The Corsica Open, Ciudad de Leon, etc. etc. etc. |
|
| Oct-20-09 | | Jim Bartle: No, I didn't see it marked in any way. I just thought maybe Kasparov's errors were due to some degree to time trouble. |
|
| Oct-23-09 | | Everett: <Jim Bartle> Aagaard claims Kasparov is an outstanding player all around, but sometimes does not have the "feel" for endgames as the top technique players have. *source* Excelling at Chess. |
|
| Feb-16-14 | | rahulbcp: What an endgame!! |
|
| Feb-16-14 | | PJs Studio: I bet Kasparov was discouraged to lose what looks like a simple ending. Short's technique was flawless though. |
|
Jul-11-19
 | | Richard Taylor: It seems that 11. ... Ne5!? is superior to 11. ... Nae8?! simply because of the tactics that mean Black keeps the initiative. That isn't a losing mistake but it avoids a difficult ending. 36. ... Rb2 is a losing move but Kasparov was slowly losing ground. Perhaps not lost. 30.... Rd6 then some tactics prevent White getting the position he got. And the R can get to a6 etc. The position would be= |
|
May-16-20
 | | FSR: Opening Explorer shows that 4...Nbd7! scores much better than 4...Bd7. |
|
Feb-14-24
| | FSR: Stockfish 16 at depth 35 says that both standard responses to 4.Bb5+ are fine, with 4...Bd7 (-0.15) a hair superior to 4...Nbd7 (-0.09). Where did Kasparov go wrong? Stockfish slightly prefers 13...Nd4 14.Qd1 h6 15.Ne4 Nxf5, but Kasparov's 13...Qxf5 is dead equal (0.00). The R+N versus R+slightly bad bishop ending is optically better for White, but SF says Black is still comfortably drawing. 30...Rb8?! was a minor misstep, allowing 31.Rf6! SF says Black should have waited with 30...Rd6, 30...Rd7, or 30...a5. Stockfish claims that the solid-looking 31...Rb7? was a big mistake, giving White a serious advantage after 32.Ra6! Instead, the active 31...Rb2 32.Ra6 Kf7 33.Rxa7+ Ke6 would have been equal. At move 33, Stockfish again claims that the active 33...Rb2!, giving up the a-pawn, would have held (-0.28, depth 34), whereas Kasparov's 33...Bg7? was reportedly a fatal error. 34.a4!+- would have been the best response. I don't profess to understand all this. |
|
Kibitzing
